No wisdom in Msian judiciary - not even common sense

From: OngBak3 Subject: No wisdom in Msian judiciary - not even common sense

The Federal Court’s ruling on 25 February 2010 that it had nojurisdiction to review its own decision is utter nonsense. The threejudges who came to this conclusion on Rule 137 of the Federal CourtRule - Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff andHeliliah Mohd Yusof - were referred to by the former Court of Appealjudge, N H Chan, as “incompetent judges – perhaps they were clowns astheir statements were laughable.”

N H Chan has brilliantly summed up the reaction of Malaysians to thisatrocious judgment by stating, “We, the ordinary citizens of thiscountry, are stunned by the ignorance of our judges of the highestcourt in the land…”

In a very scathing indictment, without mincing his words, he put itbluntly, “It is only when we have fools on the bench that I can pointout that what they have decided is not the law.”

When these personages garbed in judicial robes deliver judgments thatare so bereft of wisdom and common sense, we wonder what is thepurpose in turning to the courts for justice. Do we indeed need thesecourts when judges don't deliver justice and “do not know justice frominjustice.”

The bone of contention in this issue is Rule 137. Let’s take a goodlook at Rule 137 of the Federal Court to understand what it is allabout. In simple, clear terms, Rule 137 of the Federal Court states:

“Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.”

I’m not schooled in the law but it seems plain enough to me that thisrule does not in any way limit “the inherent powers of the Court.”In other words, it can “hear any application or make any order as maybe necessary to prevent injustice or an abuse of the process of theCourt”.

It is very clear that this rule empowers the Federal Court to preventan injustice whenever it occurs. It also has authority to prevent anabuse of the process of the Court when certain elements resort to thecourt to legitimise an illegal act or fraud.

This empowering rule allows the Federal Court to prevent injustice andthe abuse of the judicial process when certain judges discard theiroath of office and deliver judgments that offend and betray the ruleof law.

We have witnessed how this court process was abused in the case ofthe Perak State Assembly crisis, aided and abetted by judges whoseemingly come across as people who have little understanding of thelaw; as people who are not capable of applying the law as it standsand as people who don't care for the law.

The judges were so blatant and biased in their decision that N H Chanhas rightly put it, “The so-called Perak crisis has brought out a hostof cases that showed that the judges gave the impression that theywere one-sided. The perception of the people is that they sided withthe BN government.”

Now, this decision that disappointed thinking Malaysians cannot bereviewed because the recent Federal Court decision had foolishlyousted its jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, done deliberately so thatthe injustice perpetrated by these judges cannot be corrected in thefuture and they cannot be exposed as shallow minds sitting on judicialbenches. According to N H Chan, these judges are “such lowlyindividuals (who) should never be allowed to sit on the seat ofJustice...to be judges at all. And yet there are so many of them inthe judiciary today ever since the rot began”.

When the ignorance of these judges was so gross and their decision soperverse, befuddled Malaysians are wondering why the Bar Council hadnothing to say with regard to this ridiculous situation. Shouldn’tjustice be their sole concern? Doesn’t this flagrant injustice asperpetrated by the Federal Court mean anything to them? In theinterest of their profession, aren’t they expected to be troubled bythis decision?

Why then has the Bar Council not commented or taken a stand on thisissue?

We cannot allow this scandalous situation to continue or persist. TheBar Council is enjoined by the Legal Profession Act 1976 under 42(a)“to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests orthat of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour”. It is a nationalobligation that has been entrusted to the Bar Council by an act ofParliament “to uphold the cause of justice.” It must remain true andfaithful to this sacred responsibility.

Aliran would like to call upon the Bar Council to boycott the courtsone day in a month, every month, until this decision is rescinded orreversed so that the avenue to seek justice is not foreclosed .

The Bar Council may also want to consider boycotting the Federal Courtuntil this matter is righted. This move is not without precedent. In1988, the Bar Council adopted a resolution to boycott the SupremeCourt and the Lord President, Tun Hamid Omar, for the abysmal role heplayed in the ouster of Tun Salleh Abas to weaken the judiciary andstrengthen the hand of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the politician.

The nation looks up to the Bar Council to make a stand at its AGMtomorrow. Will it take up the challenge and live up to ourexpectations?